• Welcome to TalkWeather!
    We see you lurking around TalkWeather! Take the extra step and join us today to view attachments, see less ads and maybe even join the discussion.
    CLICK TO JOIN TALKWEATHER

Trump Nominates Neil Gorsuch for Supreme Court

For those never Trump folks and others...this choice tonight, and compared to what it would have been had Hillary won, alone is enough to validate what a tremendous positive difference Trump's win is for America.
C3ipuH0XAAEd29y.jpg
 
Last edited:
Lori said:
I'm trying to wrap my head around that the a Supreme Court nominee is my age! UGH!!
Click to expand...

That is quite young is it not? He could serve for quite a few years. Seems to be a Scalia acolyte. I think in eleven days Trump has demonstrated that he is serious about changing course for this country. I think his war with the press is brilliant. He is not going to allow them to define him the way they did GWB. He is also going to force them (or hopes to) to return to journalism and not advocacy. I give him an A+ so far.
 
Stormlover said:
For those never Trump folks and others...this choice tonight, and compared to what it would have been had Hillary won, alone is enough to validate what a tremendous positive difference Trump's win is for America.
C3ipuH0XAAEd29y.jpg
Click to expand...

Yeah, I must thank you Keith. I was planning to write in vote for Ted Cruz or not vote at all for President, but you convinced me that even with his flaws, Trump was a better choice than Hillary. You were so right. She would have nominated an activist liberal; wouldn't have even considered a conservative.
 
Gorsuch has received solid reviews from Democrats, citing his conservative values but they believe he uses fair judgement and strictly follows the law.

Trump is going to make it hard for the Senate Democrats to fight this without appearing to be the obstructionists they railed against last year.
 
Mike S said:
Gorsuch has received solid reviews from Democrats, citing his conservative values but they believe he uses fair judgement and strictly follows the law.

Trump is going to make it hard for the Senate Democrats to fight this without appearing to be the obstructionists they railed against last year.
Click to expand...
Would that surprise you if democrats obstructed? I mean, if they didn't have double standards, they wouldn't have standards at all. It's amazing how they have finger wagged the right on not accepting election results, peaceful transition of power, and somehow are all of a sudden opposed to big government and executive orders even though their buddy Obama issued 270 some odd EOs.

They have REALLY shown their true colors this election.
 
Kory said:
Would that surprise you if democrats obstructed? I mean, if they didn't have double standards, they wouldn't have standards at all. It's amazing how they have finger wagged the right on not accepting election results, peaceful transition of power, and somehow are all of a sudden opposed to big government and executive orders even though their buddy Obama issued 270 some odd EOs.

They have REALLY shown their true colors this election.
Click to expand...

Typical of many politicians.
 
Mike S said:
Gorsuch has received solid reviews from Democrats, citing his conservative values but they believe he uses fair judgement and strictly follows the law.

Trump is going to make it hard for the Senate Democrats to fight this without appearing to be the obstructionists they railed against last year.
Click to expand...
It's a solid pick.
 
After reading more and more about this guy I think he is a good pick. Restores a bit of my confidence in Trump. A lot of people refer to him as a Judge's Judge. I think we are in a good spot until Kennedy retires.
 
He's very pro 2nd Amendment, which is a HUGE plus to me. Hopefully this helps in regards to nationwide reciprocity for CCW permit holders.

Already some movement in regards to getting the costly fees removed from suppressors with the Hearing Protection Act being introduced.
 
As I've mentioned before, Trump is capable of doing both good and bad. No one is all good or all bad. I just recently supported his decision to fire the Acting AG. I wasn't happy with the childish letter he sent referencing her dismissal, but he was absolutely right to fire her.

I say all that to say I'm not against everything that Trump does, although his past behavior and actions have to be considered when individually weighing any decision he makes.

As many of you know, abortion is the singularly most important issue for me. I believe if you wanted to be sure you were getting a Pro-Life Judge that Pryor was the slam-dunk choice.

A lot of people are saying Hardiman had the possibility of being the next Conservative disappointment, but I don't believe Gorsuch is immune from that even though I think he is a well-qualified pick and was clearly one of the best choices available.

Gorsuch clerked for White and Kennedy. Yes, White was famous for being one of two dissenters in Roe v. Wade, but a major reason for that is he didn't like to see heated social issues decided from the bench. Gorsuch has an essentially identical philosophy. White also was a major believer in the supremacy of stare decis as is Gorsuch, although he has gone against that ONLY as an advisement to his own Circuit to overturn a precedent.

Obviously Kennedy has supported some abortion restrictions while also upholding Roe v. Wade. Gorsuch has published a book on euthanasia in which he said the principle question (and I'm paraphrasing) of Roe v. Wade is whether or not a fetus is recognized as a person. If it is, then Roe v. Wade is not constitutional. If it is not, then Roe is constitutional. Although he does not answer that question, he does make strong arguments that all life should be protected and all intentional killing is wrong.

In summary, it seems Gorsuch believes in upholding precedent unless there is the possibility of a complete change afforded to a circuit court or to SCOTUS. He clerked for Kennedy and White. That would leave you to believe he would support abortion restrictions and/or be very critical of Roe v. Wade. Thus, it seems he would be a good candidate for overturning Roe. However, his belief (like White) that hotbutton social issues should be decided by the voters (or their proxy the legislature) balances that out because of his strong belief in precedence.

Obviously this is all just my opinion, but I'd say if Gorsuch is confirmed, and obviously depending upon the makeup of the court when/if it receives another broad abortion case, I don't actually think he would completely overturn Roe v. Wade. I believe he would support state level restrictions completely. I also think that if Congress passed legislation outlawing abortion he would absolutely uphold the constitutionality of that. Talk about something that would be the mother of all legislative battles, and for that reason I think such sweeping legislation is unlikely. More likely are significant and increased abortion restrictions passed legislatively and eventually decided on by SCOTUS.

Finally, there is the wildcard of Gorsuch being Episcopalian. If abortion was a very clear-cut and important issue to him you'd think he'd be a member of a church that was Pro-Life. The Episcopal church believes abortion should only be reserved for extreme cases, but that it should not be infringed upon by any type of statutory limits.

So, I don't believe anyone can say for certainty that Gorsuch would 100% overturn Roe v. Wade. Some of you may say you could say that about anyone, but although I'm not a huge fan of Pryor's decisions or actions elsewhere, there is zero doubt he would absolutely vote to overturn Roe.

I think Gorsuch would be a reliable Conservative on the bench as he is a textualist (which I am not personally a huge supporter of), but I doubt he would be to the level of Scalia or Thomas. I think he would be somewhat close, but still a notch below.

No one ever knows how this stuff will turn out...see Sandra Day O'Connor, Souter, and Kennedy for reference. Gorsuch is a great choice, but I do believe pragmatics were at play here. Trump did not want to risk losing a confirmation hearing. Gorsuch is Conservative enough that Republicans will fight like hell to get him confirmed, and the entire Conservative movement will be behind them. It will bring a ton of unity that Trump desperately needs right now due to his first week of serious missteps.

But do not be fooled. Gorsuch is not a slam-dunk to overrule Roe. Pryor was, abs and Mike Lee would have been as well, but that was never more than a pipedream. Trump likes to make deals where he can. He needs Republicans back on his side. I believe that's why he chose Gorsuch over Hardiman. I also believe he was advised that Gorsuch would be much easier to confirm than Pryor. I don't believe abortion was Trump's primary consideration. I just don't. Trump's Pro-Life conversion is still recent, and there's quite a bit of doubt about whether or not it is truly legitimate or due to political expediency.
 
I would like to point out that Trump vs. Hillary was not a binary choice except in a handful of states. Alabama was definitely not, and although Georgia was closer than what is normally comfortable... if Hillary had won Georgia it would have been due to an absolute massacre of a landslide.

As I just stated in my other post, keep in mind that Trump desperately needs unity right now and to change the subject from his missteps and serious problems with the GOP Congress. Don't take Gorsuch for more than it is. There are always ulterior motives, although it is nice to see Trump made a great choice.
 
For the record I'm an independent voter. Unlike my grandfather, I have NEVER voted a straight ticket and quite honestly I think the concept of being able mark one column is unamerican. That being said I feel the Democrats are playing into a Republican trap with this Supreme Court pick. They are pissed about the Republicans not even really considering Obama's pick, who was also a really good pick. I even agree that the Republicans should have given him a fair chance based on the fact that the President was doing exactly what is prescribed by law, but so were they. However, I point out that they wouldn't have been in that situation if they had held on to the Senate with the last set of mid-terms.

That being said the trap is clear, they are going to hold up the nomination for a good pick and the Republicans are going to "go nuclear" and change the rules and so when Justice Kennedy retires (which he has discussed doing) or lord forbid we lose another justice they are going to basically have a ticket to put whomever President Trump wants in the role with the modified rules.

Pick your battles carefully Democrats....

maxresdefault.jpg
 
Last edited:
WesL said:
For the record I'm an independent voter. Unlike my grandfather, I have NEVER voted a straight ticket and quite honestly I think the concept of being able mark one column is unamerican. That being said I feel the Democrats are playing into a Republican trap with this Supreme Court pick. They are pissed about the Republicans not even really considering Obama's pick, who was also a really good pick. I even agree that the Republicans should have given him a fair chance based on the fact that the President was doing exactly what is prescribed by law, but so were they. However, I point out that they wouldn't have been in that situation if they had held on to the Senate with the last set of mid-terms.

That being said the trap is clear, they are going to hold up the nomination for a good pick and the Republicans are going to "go nuclear" and change the rules and so when Justice Kennedy retires (which he has discussed doing) or lord forbid we lose another justice they are going to basically have a ticket to put whomever President Trump wants in the role with the modified rules.

Pick your battles carefully Democrats....
Click to expand...
After seeing the way the Dems handled themselves after the DNC and the election, I've vowed to never, EVER, even entertain the idea of voting democrat. Doesn't mean I'll vote a straight Republican ticket but if it means stopping a democrat, I will.
 
Kory said:
After seeing the way the Dems handled themselves after the DNC and the election, I've vowed to never, EVER, even entertain the idea of voting democrat. Doesn't mean I'll vote a straight Republican ticket but if it means stopping a democrat, I will.
Click to expand...
Well I can live with that. Just the fact you are looking at each office makes me happy.
 
The democrat party has been hijacked by an extreme, and I do mean extreme left wing. They don't realize it yet, but all this protesting, rioting and obstruction will only lead to GOP gains in the mid-terms and a larger Trump victory in 2020. George Soros is single handedly destroying their party. And why is he allowed to incite violence all over the country ? He is a nuisance and becoming(if he's not already) a threat to national security. And that threat should be dealt with accordingly!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top